Post Your Comment

104 Comments

Yes, increasing the drive current means increasing the current that's flowing through the transistors, which does explain the heat increase.

watts = current x voltage

If we do the math, we can figure out how many amps the current Prescott runs on...

The 3.2 and 3.4 Ghz models have a spec of 103 watts, and the voltage is 1.385, so divide 103 by 1.385 and you get about 74.3 amps.

The 3.4 Ghz Northwood has a spec of 89 watts, and the voltage is 1.550, that's 57.4 amps.

That's a 30% increase in current, with only a 20% reduction in voltage. There's your extra heat. 103 watts vs. 89 watts... about a 16% increase in heat. We can take this a little further and say...

The Prescott at 3.4 Ghz produces 103 watts of heat, max. The Prescott at 3.0 Ghz produces 89 watts of heat, max. That means a 3.4 GHz Prescott runs on 74.3 amps, and the 3.0 GHz Prescott runs on 64.3 amps. So increasing the speed by 400 Mhz requires 10 more amps. So a 3.6 GHz Prescott would run on 79.3 amps, which would create 109.8 watts... and a 3.8 GHz Prescott would run on 84.3 amps, which would create 116.8 watts... and a 4.0 GHz Prescott would run on 79.3 amps, which would create 123.7 watts...and a 5.0 GHz Prescott would run on 104.3 amps, which would create 144.5 watts.

This is of course assuming they don't make core changes that require less current, and that they don't make core changes that require less voltage. It will be VERY interesting to see how they deal with this increased thermal output... considering it looks like the 2.8 Ghz Prescotts are maxing out at 50 degrees C with the retail heatsinks... and the thermal output of a 5 Ghz Prescott is about twice that, so, with the same heatsink as the 2.8... a 5 Ghz Prescott should run at about 100 degrees C, lol. 5 Ghz is a ways away though, 4 is much closer, but still, that's about a 75% increase in heat over the 2.8... so you're gonna be looking at full load temps around 80 degrees C unless Intel pulls something out of their hat.

On a side note...

Strained Silicon is supposed to reduce current leakage, and it does. But what I think Intel maybe didn't foresee is the 30% increase in current… or maybe they thought they could run on 1.0 – 1.2 volts.

See, voltage is electrical pressure, current is electrical volume. If you increase the volume of electricity moving through, but decrease the pressure, not as much current will leak. Think of it like a water hose. If you need a certain amount of water in a certain amount of time, you can increase the water pressure, and it will move faster so you'll have more water, but you might spring a leak in the hose... or you can just get a bigger hose and use less water pressure, which is basically what Intel did with Strained Silicon.

AMD’s approach with using SOI has been, dare I say, more successful. When you look at the specifications, the 3400+, 2.2 GHz has a maximum of 89 watts at 1.5 volts. When the PowerNow feature is used, it drops down to 2.0 GHz, and 1.4 volts, the wattage drops down to a cool 69 watts. When it drops down again to 1.8 GHz and 1.3 volts, the wattage drops to 50 watts. And finally when it drops down to 1.0 GHz and 1.1 volts, the wattage is a frigid 22 watts. Normally you would think that means for every 200 MHz increase, your wattage increases by 10 watts. However… the FX-53 runs at 2.4 GHz and it’s maximum wattage is also 89 watts. So it seems as though AMD may be estimating very high with these early processors if a 2.4 GHz chip has the same maximum heat dissipation of a 2.0 GHz chip. The only explanation I can come up with is that as they get more experience at manufacturing these chips, current leakage just gets better and better. We can only hope to see the same from Intel with the Prescott as they refine their Strained Silicon and 90nm process.Reply

Oh, and I think that the conspicuous silence by AT and everybody else on this subject only confirms that Intel indeed has something up its sleeve. They all say "Prescott has higher energy consumption" and "a larger transistor count" without even speculating as to what could create the wild disparity that we see with the transistor math.Reply

#96: I'm no CPU designer, but it seems to me that the "add transistors to dissapate heat more evenly" argument doesn't make sense. Why not just have empty silicon if you need to spread things out? Adding actual transistors will also increase the amount of heat output, so the density of heat would stay the same.

So it's pricey, runs hot, shows little improvement over the earlier northwoods, and did I mention pricey? The 3.4c is 415 dollars at newegg let alone what a 3.2 o 3.4E would cost.

To us tech-gurus it comes down to common sense, but everybody knows marketing will always get the better of AMD. Intel well shovel "you're paying for the best performer", which is sadly true by a small margin if that for a huge price difference. And how people ignore the A64 completely just because 64-bit is not needed as of right now is just frustrating.

AMD made a remarkable achievement for making affordable technology while satisfying the need for higher performance.Reply

What does it mean to increase the transistor drive current by 10-20%? Does that mean that they need to run, say, 1.1 to 1.2 Amps instead of 1.0 Amps? (I know that's not what the processors use; I'm just using those numbers because they're easy to work with.) If that's correct, then it would certainly account for some of the heat increase.

Initially, I read about strained silicon and thought that the idea was that it would take less power to run the chips at the same speed. The atoms are further apart, electrons flow more easily... doesn't that mean that strained silicon should make things run cooler? (I'll be honest - the electromagnetic physics course I had to take in college was *NOT* my favorite course. Talk about a HARD class....)Reply

I think Intel's heat problems are in part down to the Strained-Silicon technology they've introduced with the 90nm process as much as anything else. If as it says it increases the transistor drive-current by 10-20% then thats 10-20% more power and therefore heat being generated by each transistor for a given voltage.

AMD however has opted to go for SOI now and that reduces leakage-current (waste) from the transistors, which means less heat is generated by them.

Intel is expected to introduce SOI with their 65nm process in 2005 and that should help reduce their heat problem a bit, and AMD will no doubt adopt Strained-Silicon around about the same time which will raise the amount of heat in their chips making them both about even again.

The difference now is that Intel implemented the heat-increasing performance improvement first, while AMD implemented the heat-decreasing one first.Reply

Of course, they also end up concluding the same things as me: the changes that Intel has really told us about don't seem like they should really be using up the 45 million added transistors. (A Northwood with 1 MB of L2 would be an 80 million transistor CPU.)

Intel did make numerous small changes to the processor, so I guess that it is possible that they could have used up all of the extra transistors. Who knows?

One other thing that isn't really being talked about anywhere is transistor density. In the past, shrinking the transistor size always ended up making chips run cooler. It appears that this may not be the case with 90nm processes and beyond. If Intel had stuck with a straight Northwood core and simply moved to 90nm, then the CPU die size would be something like half of what it currently is. So instead of 112 mm2, it would be 60 mm2 or something.

With all of the heat being generated in such a small area, maybe they had to add transistors and size just to spread out the heat dissipation? It's a weird argument, but it *could* be true. When AMD releases 90nm chips and we see how hot they get, we'll probably gain more insight into this. If AMD's chips run slightly hotter, then 90nm will have marked a transition to a new set of problems in processor die shrinks.Reply

The only other explanation is that prescott is dual core. Really if the stages get smaller as the pipeline gets deeper then the transistor count should stay the same. So a dual core with double the cache should be 2xNorthwood= 110 million transistors- still 15 million unaccounted for and available for other things. Other people are saying that the 31 stage pipeline cant be right as the processor's power would be much weaker than the observed performance cf. equivalent (20 stage pipe) Northwood, despite the tweaks. It seems to perform well on the hyperthreaded enabled software and dual cpu may explain the slowness of the cache like duallies where one cpu has to keep tabs on the other. It also explains the heat for which a size reduction on a single core should augur less heat in contrast to Prescott's > 100 Watts.Reply

That's it. Prescott is already 64bit enabled. They have'nt bothered to switch them off as no intel mobo BIOS detects the 64bit extensions anyway. That's where the extra heat is coming from. I mean Northwood is ~130MM2 (55million transistors) and Prescott is close in size 112mm2 but 125million transistors - so approximately the same size but far greater transistor density so more heat. Even with the extra cache it should have been around 80 million and thus heat would have been at Northwood levels. The extra transistors still seem excessive for x86-64. So it might even be IA-64. Sckt 478 might not be pinned enough but 775 should do it. Here's my prediction then: ** 64bit WILL be available when Sckt LBGA 775 Prescott cpus come out in April with the new Grantsdale and Alderwood mobos **. And thats what is going on display in coupla of weeks time. How to check it, maybe write some assembler using X86-64 or IA-64 commands and see if they work.Reply

Technically, it depends on how you cound pipelines. The P4 has several "simple" pipelines that deal with the easy instructions, and then "complex" pipelines that deal with the more difficult instructions.

For example, they have two Integer units running at twice the core clock speed, but those only do simple integer instructions. Then they have a complex Integer unit running at core speed that can do the remaining integer instructions. So that's 3 INT units, technically, and two of those are double-pumped, so you could even call it five INT units if you want to be generous.

The FP/SSE is somewhat similar, I believe. The end result is that it's not an apples-to-apples comparison between Intel and AMD pipelines. You could really say both of them have nine different execution units (pipelines), but Intel's pipelines aren't as powerful as AMD's when compared directly. See: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/prescott-... - there is an image of the pipelines in the Prescott, which is mostly unchanged from the Northwood.

The thing with the number of stages in a pipeline still holds true. So you have 60 million transistors in 7 pipelines, each with 31 stages. (Actually, the FP pipelines probably have more stages.) That still gives you a rough guess of 275000 transistors in each pipeline stage. In the P4, it was 30 million transistors in 20 stages and still 7 pipelines, giving a guess of 215000 transistors per stage.

I'm really, REALLY curious as to what Intel is doing. For some reason, the core of the P4 in the Prescott is at least twice as big (in transistor count) as the core of the Northwood. The L2 cache is also twice as big. So we went from 29+26 million transistors in Northwood (core+L2 cache) to apparently something like 75+50 in the Prescott.

If indeed there are 75 million transistors in the Prescott core, they *had* to increase the length of the pipelines to 30 or so stages to have any chance of running fast. However, you can't argue that the increase in transistors was necessitated by the increase in the number of pipeline stages! Why? Apparently, the Prescott has more transistors per stage, so in theory a Northwood would have actually scaled to *higher* clockspeeds than a Prescott!

Intel is definitely not showing all of their cards on the table right now. I'm betting that they're trying to protect Itanium as long as they can. I guess we'll know sometime in the next year or so.Reply

#82 There is more than one pipeline in a processor so you have to take that into account in your stage/No. of transistor calculations plus registers, buffers, stacks, MMX, SSE etc.. I also am not totally happy with the AT explanation of pipelines. Pipelines are just a way of guessing the correct answer so that idle cpu time can be put to good use. I thought the stages in a pipeline be it 10 or 20 were of the same complexity. Its just that the outcome of a longer pipeline had a lower probability of being correct due to the increased likelihood of more branch statements being present in a longer pipeline. But work in checking the correct outcome is less in a longer pipeline. Work is heat so smaller pipelines make more heat which lessens speed headroom while longer pipelines can run at higher speed but correct outcomes are less probable. So to compensate they use more pipelines. Paradoxically with Prescott they've increased the pipeline lenght but they have more heat so as far as I am concerned speed headroom is limited and I doubt they will get past 4Gig with the present cpu. The o'clocks so far bear this out, with stable bests at ~3.8GHz. This is as result of some physical problem with the 90 nm process. What they should have done is applied the tweaks to the Northwood 130nm core and they would have been heaps better off. Its doubtful whether the tweaks would have increased temperature but they would be getting 30 to 50% better calculating power from the cpu at the same core speed. Would'nt need to PR rate it, just call it a different name. Then they would have had more time to sort out the 90nm problem while keeping the consumer happy. As it is they are going to cop a lot of flak over this overbaked failure.

I'm also not happy about this loss of latency in the caches. Even though i've abused large caches in the past, that was on the grounds of gaming software where i expected alot of cache misses by the cpu because of the unpredictable nature of operator driven gaming. But here they are saying the latency has increased (and tests measure this) no matter the application and the reason given by sites is the doubling in size of the cache. But when the P4 went from 256K L2 to 512k L2 and the A-XP(256K) to Barton(512K) or even A64 3000+(512K) and 3200+(1024K) no major increase in cache latency was reported- in fact often the opposite. According to Ace's the latency of the Prescott 16K data L1 cache is now close to that of the a64 L1 (64K data) 4 times its size and double the latency of the Northwood 9even though Intel says it is the same- but no figures)! Something weird's going on with this 90nm stuff.

Okay, first of all I must say that was an excellent review overall and the background material covering all the architectural changes was nothing short of superb. I'll definitely re-read chunks of that whenever I need a refresher on various aspects of its design.

Your overclocking results were very good, far better than those achieved by most other sites. However I think it was a bad idea for AnandTech to suggest a Prescott is a great overclocker based on the sample(s) they received from Intel. It would be better to wait until you've got some retail CPUs from other sources before making recommendations about buying it for overclocking as readers may not be so lucky as you were.

Right, onto the tests... overall as I see it the Prescott is really pretty much on a par with the Northwood performance-wise for a given clock-speed. Its faster at some tasks by a small margin thats not significant, and slower at as many others by a similar small margin I wouldn't worry about. As such it won't matter to an average user whether they get a P4 3.4C or a P4 3.4E processor. Therefore everything that has been said comparing the Northwood to the A64 is still valid when comparing the Prescott to the A64 (at least at clock-speeds over 3GHz).

As many others have commented, the omission of any mention at all of the thermal issues was nothing short of staggering. *Every* other major review I read at least said something about it and most of them had quite a lot to say about it. I did notice the occassional error in what they said such as at [H]ard where their Prescott was running at 1.5V which therefore invalidated their temperature readings but even on those sites where it was running at the correct voltage, heat was still an issue.

Its quite possible the current version of the Prescott is a bit like AMD's first 130nm chip the Thoroughbred 'A' which also ran rather hot. Of course this is already supposed to be the third revision of the Prescott so whether they can make any further tweaks that will seriously reduce power requirements is debatable. If they can't then ramping up the speed up to 4GHz and beyond that in 2005 will be a major problem. The most conservative estimate based on current figures would be for a 4GHz chip to have a TDP of 130W though in reality thats likely to be closer to 150W. Even if improved cooling solutions are able to get rid of that much heat from the chip *and* the case, electricity isn't free so the cost of running it must be considered to.

Finally about 64-bit support in the Prescott. It wouldn't surprise me if Prescott does have 64-bit support built into it which is currently disabled in much the same way Hyper-Threading was disabled in some Northwood cores. The only people who know for sure either work for Intel and arent saying, or are under NDA. It would be a blow to IA64 (and also in a way be seen as saying AMD was right) if Intel did suddenly enable x86-64 support so I doubt they'll do so unless the case becomes compelling. Theres no sign of that happening in the immediate future.Reply

Actually, Icewind, if they don't *have* to activate the 64-bit capability, then they're okay. I mean, activating 64-bit in x86 is basically the death toll for Itanium and IA-64. That would make some (*all*?) of the companies that have purchased and worked on IA-64 rather pissed, right?

If Prescott does have 64-bit, it was just Intel hedging their bets. They would have started design on the new core 2 years ago, around the time when the full specifications of AMD64 were released. Intel couldn't know for sure what the final result of K8 would be, so they may have decided to start early, just in case.

Like I said before, it's pure speculation at this point, but I figure adding 64-bit registers and instructions to x86 could be done with 10 to 15 million transistors "easily". I've basically figured out (as others have, apparently) that there are close to 30 million transistors that aren't accounted for in the Prescott. That's the size of the entire Northwood core (minus cache)! If you have a better idea of where these transistors were used, feel free to share it. :)Reply

CRAMITPAL you must be an ex-Intel disgruntled employee with all of the rage and hatred against the company in you messages. Prescott is a year late? Get serious! Here's the earliest article I could find dated 2/27/02 which says that Prescott was due to launch 2nd half of 2003 http://news.com.com/2100-1001-846382.html. Worst case scenario - even if you count that 2nd half started July 1st then Prescott is 7 months and 1 day delayed - a far cry from a year ago, and a very far cry from the delays of that other chip *cough* *cough* Hammer *cough*! "Special cooling" CRAM? That's probably what your brain needs. I can't seem to find the requirement for special cooling on any of the reviews that have been written thus far - mostly they just used the included HSF in the retail box which even allows for some overclocking too. As far as being slower than Athlon 64 you must need some air cooling on the brain or you must have your selective blinders on again. Page 17 of the Anandtech review http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1956&a... shows the Prescott 3.2 beating both the Athlon64 3400+ and FX51 in 8 of 9 tests and tying the FX51 in the 9th test - and that's on an Intel 875PBZ that is hobbled in performance compared to a Abit IC7-Max3 or Asus P4C800-E. There's also Aquamark CPU score, DIVX, 3dsmax, lightwave, and in case you didn't read any of the other sites' reviews, you may want to look at MPEG encoding, Photoshop 8, SPECviewperf, oh and real multitasking. I gotta give it to the Athlon64 and FX in games where anything past 30 fps looks just like 30 fps and Microsoft Word and Excel where the program is usually waiting for human input but to say that Prescott "STILL doesn't come close to matching A64 32 bit performance" is ....... well, lets just say that its a good thing that you're not marketing director for all of the companies below:

HP plans to offer Prescott chips in HP Pavilion and Compaq Presario desktops that are sold direct to customers, at first. It will start taking orders on them Wednesday.

A Compaq Presario 6000T desktop, for example, will come with a 2.8EGHz Prescott chip, 256MB of RAM, an 80GB hard drive and a CD-ROM for $749 before rebates, Oliver said.

Gateway will also offer Prescott Pentium 4s in its 510 and 710 desktops, without raising its prices. A 510G desktop will feature a 2.8EGHz Prescott and start at $1,099, the company said.

Dell plans to fit some of the new chips into its Dimension desktops and also won't increase prices. Its Dimension XPS game machine will be offered with either the 3.2EGHz Pentium 4, the 3.4GHz Northwood Pentium 4 or the 3.4GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition. With the 3.2EGHz chip, the machine will start at $1,799.

Dell will offer the 3.4GHz Northwood Pentium 4 on its Dimension 8300 at first, and will add the 3EGHz and 3.2EGHz Prescott chips by the middle of February, the company said. The 3.4GHz Dimension will start near $1,350.

A number of other PC makers, ranging from IBM to Micro Center, will add desktops with Prescott chips as well.

In regards to #78, the reason for increasing the pipeline length was to allow for higher clock speeds by doing less work in each pipeline stage. (As the Anandtech article mentions.) A 20 stage Northwood core on 90nm process would probably end up maxed out at around 4.0 GHz, with Intel's typically conservative binning. (You could maybe OC to 4.4 GHz.) With the 31 stage pipeline, it becomes much easier to reach 5.0 GHz.

Think about this: at 5 GHz, each clock cycle is .2 ns, or 200 ps. The speed of light can travel a "whopping" 6 cm in that amount of time - in a vacuum! In a copper wire, I think 4 cm might be a better estimate. Now you have to wait for voltages to stabilize and signals to propogate through the transistors. I would think that waiting for the voltages to stabilize probably constitutes the majority of time taken, so now the signals can probably only travel 1 cm.

If that's the case, it becomes pretty clear why they have to have longer and longer pipelines. You can't get signals to stabilize through millions of transistors in 200 picoseconds. Well, maybe you can, but if each stage is cut down to 2 million transistors (~60 million transistors in the Prescott core, with 31 stages total, gives about 2 million per stage) it would definitely take less time for signals to become stable than if you have 3 million transistors per stage (20 stage pipeline with 60 million transistors in the core).

Of course, if the Northwood core is 30 million transistors (29 million, really), a 20 stage pipeline would give 1.5 million transistors per stage. Hmmm... So once again we're back to the 64-bit conspiracy, because where are those extra 30 million transistors being used?Reply

For some reason, I have a REAL hard time believing a company like Intel would "secretly" put in 64 bit extentions in a new CPU core. Especially one that has pretty much shown it is no better then the current Northwood core.

Far as im concered, Intel goes back to drawing board and AMD owns the first part of 2004.Reply

#77 Trogdor, you beat me to it and with more detail but same estimation- i wont say great minds etc. Increased density of cache may also explain increased latency. However, 13^2 is 169 and 9^2 is 81 which translates to 52% decrease area wise which is close to 47% decrease quoted allowing for other factors like strained silicon.Reply

Maybe Intel ARE going to bring out a 64bit prescott in a coupla weeks to make up for this let down. Aces reckons there is 30 million transistors unaccounted for, when factoring in the bigger caches (Northwood 55 million transistors, prescott 125 million). Some of this is debugging hardware but that cant be the whole story.

With the exception of the caches, the prescott tweaks are good. Why didnt they just do those to the 20 stage pipeline Northwood core? They would have got 30 to 50% more power for the same clock speed and less heat. Geez, I'm happy I bought my northwood in June,03 and I'll probably upgrade to one or a gallatin (if the price drops) unless they sort this heat problem out.Reply

Interesting article. Frankly, I'm *SHOCKED* that Intel really went with 31 pipeline stages. I had heard the rumors, but I figured someone was using the FP pipeline and not the integer pipeline. Damn... that's a serious penalty to pay for branch mispredictions!

What I really want to know, however, is what else the Prescott can do that Intel isn't telling us yet. I've heard all the rumors about 64-bit capability being hidden, but I disgarded them. Now, though, with the specifications released, I honestly have to reconsider. After all, the 30-stage pipeline "rumor" was pretty accurate, so these 64-bit rumors might be as well!

Before you scoff, let me give you some very compelling reasons for Prescott to have hidden 64-bit functionality. Let's start with a quote from the Anandtech article (from page 8): "With Prescott Intel debuted their highest density cache ever – each SRAM cell (the building blocks of cache) is now 43% smaller than the cells used in Northwood. What this means is that Intel can pack more cache into an even smaller area than if they had just shrunk the die on Prescott."

Okay, you got that? As far as I can tell, this means that Intel has improved their SRAM design in the Prescott so that it is smaller - i.e. uses less transistors - than their old SRAM in the Northwood. Sounds reasonable, right? Now, let's reference a different section of the article, on page 11 look at the chart at the bottom. (For a more complete chart, here's a link to THG with both AMD and Intel CPUs: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/images/cp...

Looking at that chart (both Anand and THG have the same numbers, so I'm quite sure they're correct), how many transistors does the P4 Northwood require? The answer is 29 million for the *core*, plus whatever is required for the L2 cache. So the Willamette was 42 mil (13 mil for the 256K L2 cache) and the Northwood is 55 mil (26 mil for the 512K L2 cache). How much space is required for L2 cache, then, based off of Intel's *old* techniques? Apparently, 13 million transistors per 256K of cache. Reasonable enough, since AMD is pretty close to that, judging by the transistor count increase when they went to Barton.

How many transistors would be required, then, for Intel to produce a 1024K L2 cache? In this scenario, 52 million, right? Granted, all caches are not the same: the 2MB L3 cache of the P4EE/Xeon is 30.75 million transistors per 512K, or 15.375 million per 256K, so it's not as "efficient" as the L2 cache design. Still, if we go with 52 million for the 1024K L2 on the Prescott, we end up with 73 million transistors remaining for the CPU core. Even if we go with 61.5 million transistors for the 1024K cache (using the L3 Xeon numbers), we still have 63.5 million transistors left for the core.

So, the original P4 core was 20 stages and 29 million transistors. The Prescott core is 31 stages and somewhere between 60 and 75 million transistors. Even with all of the changes mentioned in the article, I don't see Intel using 30 million transistors just in increasing the pipeline, adding 13 new instructions, and modifying the branch prediction and hyper threading. I suppose I could be wrong, but I am really starting to think that the Prescott might have some unannounced 64-bit capabilities. Rumors often have a kernel of truth in them, you know?

Some other thoughts: Athlon 64 is very much based off of Athlon XP, only with 64-bit extensions and SSE2 support, right? Looking at AMD's chart, the Athlon core took about 22 million transistors, and AMD needed between 16 and 17 million transistors per 256K of L2. If they stuck with those values, a 1024K L2 in the Athlon 64 would require 64 million transistors. The K8 is 105.9 million transistors, so we end up with 42 million remaining transistors in the core. Some of that also had to be used on the newly integrated memory controller. Still, *worst* case, AMD used at most 20 million transistors to add a memory controller, SSE2 support, and 64-bit support to the Athlon XP core. What could Intel possibly be doing with 30 to 40 million transistors, I wonder?

Yes, this is speculation. However, it's speculation based on facts. Maybe Intel doesn't have 64-bit support in Prescott, but I will be really surprised if they don't announce *something* at IDF in a few weeks. 64-bit seems like the likely choice, but maybe there's something else that I missed. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

Now, some other thoughts. First, how many people have built an Athlon 64 rig? I just built my first this past weekend, and let me tell you, all is NOT sunshine and roses for AMD. I purchased Geil PC3200 Golden Dragon 2-3-3-6 timing RAM - 1 GB in a paired set. Nothing but trouble getting it to work on the AMD!!! Okay, so it was an MSI Neo-FIS2R board; maybe that was the problem? Anyway, I've used the same RAM in P4 systems with no problems.

Running at 2.5-3-3-6 didn't help, although I was able to install Windows XP (it would crash at the 2-3-3-6 timings that were specified in the SPD); once installed, I couldn't complete any benchmarks without crashes. I tried other timings as well; 3-4-4-8 failed to POST and I had to clear the CMOS. Maybe 2.5-4-4-8 would work? I got tired of trying, though. The solution that DID work, unfortunately, was to run the RAM at DDR333 speed and auto (2-3-3-6) timings.

Okay, that said, Athlon 64 3000+ was still plenty fast, and most people won't notice the difference between the top systems except in HPC environments or benchmarks. And the new heatsink, although more difficult to install, is much appreciated. The heat spreader is a welcome addition also. Overall, I was frustrated with the memory problems, but A64 is okay. My advice is to check closely on motherboards and the RAM you'll be using before jumping into the "wonderful" world of Athlon 64. A great page for this (although it will definitely become outdated over time) is at THG:http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20040112/m...Reply

Intel road maps said Prescott would be released a year ago... Intel Press Releases claimed all was fine with 90 nano and "ahead of schedule". Intel is not to be trusted. They released the Enema Edition THREE times with paper launches. The 3.4 Gig. Prescott ain't even available. They are selling CPU rejects IMNHO that will not run at the 3.4 Gig. and faster design speed.

Any company that would release what in my opionion and that of others is a defective CPU design, to market for naive, gullible sheep to buy, is fraud. If they couldn't fix this Dog at least don't mislead consumers by releasing an over-heating piece of crap that is SLOWER than the Northwood, uses more electrical power, needs special cooling and STILL doesn't come close to matching A64 32 bit performance, and doesn't do 64 bit at all.Reply

i don't understand why some people are bashing such a good inovation that was long overdue from intel.

a pc that doubles as a heater and at only 100-200W power consumption.

Let me remind you that a conventional fan heater eats up a kilowatt/hour of power.

Think positive

* space reduction * enormous power savings (pc + fan heater)* extremly sophisticated looking fan haeter* extremly safe casing. reduces burn injuries to pets and children.* finely tunable temperature settings (only need to overclock by small increments)* coupled with an lcd it features the best looking temperature adjustment one has ever witnessed on a heater* child proof as it features thermal shutdown* anyone having a laugh thus far* will soon feature on american idol the worst singers will receive one p4 E based unit each. That should make people think twice about auditioning thus making sure only true talent shows up.* gives dell new marketing potential and a crack at a long desired consumer heating electronic* amd is nowhere near this advancement in thermal thechnology leaving intel way ahead

hope you enjoyed some of my thoughts

Other than that good article and some good comments.

on another note i don't understand why people run and fill intels pockets so intel can hide their engineering mistakes with unseen propaganda, while there is an obvious choice.

choice is Advanced Micro Devices all until intel gets their act together.

I think CRAMITPAL must have sat on a hot Prescott and got it stuck where the sun doesn't shine - that would explain all of the yelling and screaming and friggin this and friggin that going on. "Approved mobo, approved PC case cooling system, approved heatsink & fan - and you better not use Artic Silver or else it will void your warranty..." gee - didn't we just hear that when Athlon XPs came out? It brings to mind when TechTV put their dual Athlon MP rig together and it started smoking and catching on fire when they fired it up the first time on live television during their show.

Intel roadmap says Prescott will hit 4.2 GHz by Q1 '05. My guess is that it is already running at 4 GHz but just needs to be fine tuned to reduce the heat. I bet the experts (or self proclaimed experts such as CRAM) were betting that Northwood could not hit 3 GHz and look where it is at today. Video card GPUs today are hitting 70 degrees C plus at full load but they do fine with cooling in the same PC cases. Reply

Dealing with the FLAME THROWER's heat issues is only one aspect of Prescott's problems. The chip is a DOG and it requires an "approved Mobo" and an "approved PC case cooling system", a premo PSU cause the friggin thing draws 100+ Watts and this crap all costs money you don't need to spend on an A64 system that is faster, runs cooler, and does both 32/64 bit processing faster. How difficult is THIS to comprehend???

Ain't no way Intel is gonna be able to Spin this one despite the obvious "press material" they supplied to all the reviewers to PIMP that Prescott was designed to reach 5 Gigs. Pigs will fly lightyears before Prescott runs at 5 Gigs.

Time to GET REAL folks. Prescott sucks and every hardware review site politely stated so in "political speak".Reply

There is no error. The time it takes to travel the pipelane is just a kind of process delay. What matters is the rate at witch finished/processed results come out of the pipeline. In the case of the 0.5ns/10 stage pipelane you will get one finished result every 0.5ns, twice as many as in the case of the 1ns/5 stage pipeline.

If the pipelines were building motorcycles, you woud get, respectively, 1 and 2 motorcycles every ns. And that is the point.Reply

I'm sure the prescotts will get hotter as the speed increases but you can't forget there are companies out there that specializes in this area. There are 3 companies that I know of that are doing research on ways to reduce the heat, for instance, they're planning on placing a piece of silicon with etch lines on top of the CPU and run some type of coolant through it. Much like the radiator concept.

My point is, Intel doesn't have to worry about the heat too much since there are companies out there fighting that battle. Intel will just concentrate on achieving those higher speeds and the temp control solution will come. Reply

Note that, at the same clock speed and with the same or lesser performance, the Prescot dissipates 25% more power than Northwood. This means that with a similar cooling system, the Prescot has to run substancially hoter.

As AcesHardware says,[Q]After running a 3DSMax rendering and restarting the PC, the BIOS reported that the 3.2 GHz Northwood was at about 45-47°C, while Prescott was flirting with 64-66°C. Mind you, this is measured on a motherboard completely exposed to the cool air (18°C) of our lab.[/Q]

So, what will the ~5GHx Prescot dissipate? 200W ?Will we all be forced to run PCs with bulky, expensive, etc, criogenic cooling systems?. I for one wont. This power consumption escalation has to stop. Intel and AMD have to improve the performace of their CPUs by improving the CPU archytecture and manufacturing processes, not by trowing more and more electrical power at the problem.

Prescott will never go above 3.8 Gig. even with the 3rd revision of the 90 nano process. Tejas will make it to just over 4.0 Gig. with a little luck but it won't be anything to write home about either based on current knowledge.

Hmmm... on Intel's website on the new processor news: "Thermal Monitoring: Allows motherboards to be cost-effectively designed to expected application power usages rather than theoretical maximums."

Not sure what it means. I'm thinking clock throttling so that if your particular chip is hotter than it should be it will run on under engineered motherboards/coolers.

This chip dissipates around the same heat as Northwoods clock for clock! And of course, Intel style is wait 6-12, then the new stuff will actually be good. Still, is it really that important to increase performance so much that heat becomes an issue? I.E., will Dell be able to make the cooling whisper quiet? They can with the processor sitting at 80-90c, but now that with normal cooling it's almost there, now what will they do? Why can't we just have new processors that run so cool that we can just use heatsinks without fans? Oh well. Reply

"if you halve the time for a stage in the pipeline and double the number of stages. Yes this means you can run at 2GHz instead of 1GHz but the reality is you're still taking 5ns to complete the pipe."

Yes and no... In the example, you're right that a single instruction takes the same 5ns to complete. But you're not just executing a single instruction... rather, thousands to millions! The 10 stage pipe has twice as many instructions in flight as the 5 stage pipe. Therefore in the example, you get one result out of the 5-stage/1Ghz cpu every 1ns, but TWO results out of the 10-stage/2Ghz cpu in the same 1ns... twice as many.

What I find interesting is that as pipelines get longer and longer, we might have to start talking about Instruction Latency: the number of clocks and ns between the time an instruction goes in and when the result comes out. It'll never be anything a human could notice directly, but it might come into play in high-performance realtime apps that deal with input from the outside world, and have to produce synchronized output. Any CPU calculates somewhat "back-in-time" as instructions fly down the pipe... right now, a Prescott calculates about twice as far behind 'reality' as an A64 does. I don't know if there is any realworld application where this really could make a difference, or if there ever will be, but it's interesting to ponder, particularly if the pipeline lengths of Intel vs. AMD continue to diverge.Reply

i don't see how a 4+GHz prescott will match up with intel's new pico BTX form factor...with that much heat (using air cooling), you need to keep a safe zone around the proc unless you like your RAM DDR+BBQ. I'd have to say that a lot of enthusiasts are younger and live in limited space conditions...might work well for people up north who don't want to run the heater, but as for me in texas, i have all the cool air pumping in to my bedroom and it still takes a lot to keep it cool. Can you imagine a university or corporation having a room full of those?..if they think about that, then it's no bueno for DELL and others as well.I'd also have to agree with the others about the heat/power being a major part of the article that was left out...otherwise a tremendous read, thanks for all the effort that goes into these.Reply

Is it just me (who was extremely tired yesterday) or has the 101 on pipeline part changed since the article was put up?I seem to rememeber reading someting about how a 5 staged CPU at 1 Ghz should be exactly as fast as a 2 GHz CPU with 10 stages (all else being equal of course) and that the secret of geting any profit out of going to more stages was to make sure that it couldn't only scale to 2 Ghz but to 3 Ghz or more.Reply

Ace's Hardware summed it up well: Prescott is a DOG, or to be exact a HOT DOG ! See the picture in the review of the dog warming it's toes next to the Prescott powered PC. Talk about one sad CPU piece of crap...

Here is the FLAME THROWER reality check:

"Currently there is no reason to upgrade to Prescott, as the gaming performance is more or less ok, but many applications report pretty poor results. On top of that, the new Intel CPU gets hot very quickly and requires a well ventilated case. The Athlon 64 3200+ is not always the clear winner in games compared to 3.2 GHz Prescott, but the 3400+ will have little trouble beating the 3.4 GHz Prescott in most benchmarks. Prescott will have to scale incredibly quickly to outperform the Athlon 64, because the latter scales excellently with clockspeed, and we definitely prefer Cool'n'Quiet over Hot'n Prescott! "

As shown this FLAME THROWER don't scale well, especially when it runs 15-20C hotter than an equal speed Northwood. Intel really fugged up this time. Ya gotta love seeing the Satan eat shit and choke! When every hardware review site on the planet, including THG's tells ya Prescott is a piece of crap, then you might as well resign to reality. DENIAL is futile!

Dell will be selling FLAME THROWING PC Heaters to any gullible sheep foolish enough to buy a Prescott. A fool and his money are soon parted !Reply

what??? no talk about heat on this chip? Come on anand this is vital info about prescott. Other sites are reporting temps up around 80c with the stock cooler. I understand that as it gets faster in mhz it will be a better performing chip but what kinda heat are we looking at at 4ghz? No way is a 80c chip going in any of my boxes. If keeping an intel badge on the front of my case means i have to have a delta fan in my box then you can forget about it.Reply

something good to include on the mb compatibility article would be what boards would house the 2.8/533...i'm wondering myself if the E7205 chipset would...i have a p4g8x, and it would be a welcome upgrade with HT and all the other goodies if it oc's well.Reply

The message is clear: Anandtech and all of the other review sites didn't burn down so I guess it's not a flame thrower.

Prescott is not as fast as I had hoped but is definitely not the step backwards as some were rumoring it to be. I think a Prescott 2.8 @ 250 MHz FSB will be really nice to play with until I see what Intel announces at IDF in a few weeks. Reply

if you halve the time for a stage in the pipeline and double the number of stages. Yes this means you can run at 2GHz instead of 1GHz but the reality is you're still taking 5ns to complete the pipe.

Look at it like a motorbike: You drop down a gear and rev harder; you make more noise but you are still doing the same speed.The only reasons to drop down a gear are to break through your gears (i.e. slow down) or to rev significantly higher than the change in gear ratio in order to move faster (with more torque).

The trouble Intel has is that they drop down a gear then rev 6 months to a year later.Reply

Just curious, Anand or Derek: what board did you use to get the 3.72 GHz oc? Obviously it wasn't the intel board used in the benches. I guess we'll hear all about this in the compatibility review though :)

keep up the good work, that last point about smaller margins at higher clockspeeds (vs. Northwood) was cool. Let's just hope the pattern continues.Reply

Seems to me like people either got cought up in some of the hype and expected to much or some people expected to little and that history would repeat itself (Willamette vs Palomino)

The fact that the Prescott fared much better in it's launch compared to the Willamette might be a hint to not underestimate it. Prescott isn't really looking bad now, and I think it will hit stride faster then the Willamette core did.

I've grown to appreciate CRAMITPAL. If you read around the opinionated diatribes, he has some good stuff that people avoid saying for fear of retaliation. I suppose if I were in love with Intel, he would tick me off.

But, it does look like Intel has created a CPU that should ramp up to speeds high enough to beat the A64 in 32bit mode, and that is all they needed to do.

Regardless of how much heat that is going to take, Intel must have some way in the works to handle it.

Looks like they might not charge an arm and leg for it, which is the biggest shock.Reply

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say 2004 is the year of the Athlon-64 and Intel will take a back seat this year unless their new socket will help increase clock speeds. When AMD makes the transition to 90nm I think you'll see a jump in clock speed from them too... and I'm willing to bet their current 130nm processors will scale to 2.6 or 2.8 Ghz if they want to put the effort into it before switching to 90nm.

Intel better hope people adopt SSE3 in favor of AMD-64 otherwise they're going to lose the majority of the benchmark tests.

On second thought... the real question is how high will Prescott scale... will we really see 4.0 Ghz by the end of the year? Will performance scale as well as it does with the Athlon-64?

Right now, looking at the Prescott, the best I can say for it is "huh, 31 stages in the pipeline and they didn't lose too much performance, neat."Reply

Listen,I just want you to know that everything will be alright. Really, life isn't all that bad buddy. It's not good to keep so much hate inside. It's very unhealthy. We are all family here at the Anandtech forums and we care about you. If you ever need to sit down and talk, I'm ll ears pal. So that your brother doesn't feel left out, here's a hug for him aswell.......

Yeah, the Inquirer was right about 30 stages. Maybe I should start reading it! However I did read the one where the news linked to an article purporting that an Inquirer reporter had bumped into a person who had overheard an Intel executive say Prescott was 64 bit. Maybe Derek and Anand didn't have the space to squeeze that tiny detail into the review.

I saw a paper on the Intel site a while ago, seemingly intended for some professional jounal, the premise of which was that it is ALWAYS preferable to make the pipeline longer, no matter how long, while using techniques to reduce the penalties. Like, 100 stages would be a good thing. Right then I knew what one team at Intel was up to. The fact that they didn't explain any new penalty reduction techniques only made it all the more sure what Intel had in the works (otherwise why write the paper?), and that they had the techniques worked out, but still under wraps.Reply

I like the part about the new shift/rotate unit on the CPU. Does this mean that prescott will be noticeably faster for the RC5 project? Athlon's usually mop the floor with whatever the Northwood can pump out.Reply

"Botmatch has bots (AI) playing, shooting, running, etc. (deathmatch) while Flyby does not. The number that you should be most interested in is the Botmatch scores."

No, I am talking about the botmatch scores from previous articles. Well aware of the difference between flyby and botmatch. http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1946&a... In that article, all CPU's had about 10 more fps than the CPU's in the prescott article.

JFK,Vietnam,Nixon,Monica,Bush/Gore,Iraq and now this! - what is going on with the leader of the free world.I hope it overclocks well- that's all that's going for it. Maybe Intel should rethink their multiplier locked policy. AMD must get in there and profit. I still dont understand why the caches are running at half the latency as Northood if they are the same speed and structure? Is it as a result of a doubling in size for the same associativity?

Good article- needs re-rereading after digestion. Last chart in Sysmark2004 (data analysis) has 3.0 Prescott totally outperformed by 2.8 Prescott and all other cpus. Look like a benchmark/typing glitch.Reply

first the error:pg 9 -The LDDQU instruction is one Intel is particularly proud of as it helps accelerate video encoding and it is implemented in the DivX 5.1.1 codec. More information on how it is used can be found in Intel’s developer documentation here.

No link?

==="What's the power consumption like on these new bad boys?

Is anything less than a quality 450watt PSU gonna be generally *NOT* recommended?? "

I'm going to guess a clean running ~350W or so should suffice for a regular system, but I'm not positive with these monster gfx cards out rite now...

"Any of you know what the cache size on the EE's will be?"

If your talking about the Northwood (the p4c's are still considered northwoods, no?), its 1mb I believe.(still finishing the article. man i love these in-depth technical articles)Reply

All I want to know now is what AMD is going to do soon... They'll probably counteract Prescott with high clock speeds but when and by how much is what matters.

Any of you know what the cache size on the EE's will be?

Also, the final CPU's based on Northwood are kind of like a car with the ratio curves or whatever they're called, but basically after a point of revving, going any higher doesn't give you as much of an increase in speed as it would at a lower rpm increasing the same amount.Reply

Things are gonna get hairy in '04 and '05!!! My take is that AMD nees to get their marketing up-to-spec or the high-clocked prescotts are gonna run the show.

I have a question for Derek and Anand: What kind of temps does the prescott run at? what type of cooler does it have? (there's nothing there to support or refute claims that the prescott is one hot potato)Reply

In the table on page 14 it shows that the 90nm P4@2.8 will have a 533 MHz FSB, but is that the case? I did some quick google research and can't find anything to support that...please confirm or correct, thanks.Reply

VERY interesting article. Thank you Anand and Derek! One of the best I've read on Anandtech, and I consider yours the best hardware site on the net!

One correction, on page 7, you say, "if you want to multiply a number in binary by 2 you can simply shift the bits of the number to the right by 1 bit," but don't you mean shift to the left one bit (and place a zero at the end)? It's much like multiplying a decimal number by ten for obvious reasons.

Anyway, it looks like the Prescott is somewhat of a non-event at this time. Just new cores that perform fundamentally the same as the current ones at current speeds. The real news will come later; Intel has just positioned itself for one hell of a speed ramp to come. Northwood was clearly at the end of the line. One analogy, I suppose, would be that Intel didn't fire any shots in the CPU war today, but they loaded their guns in preparation to fire.

The coming year will be an exciting one for us hardware geeks. I'm interested in seeing how higher clocked Prescotts play out as well as whether anything 64-bit shows up before 2005 to support AMD's stance that we need it NOW.

Anand scolded me for not reading the article :( I only read the conclusion and the graphs. Turns out the decision making isnt as clearcut as it sounds.

As for the thing with the inquirer. Well, lots of people had prescotts. We had one back in August I believe. The thing is they were horribly slow - 533FSB 2.8GHz. Everyone drew the conclusion that these were purposely slowed processors that were jsut for engineering purposes. While the inq benched this processor, most people didnt just becuase they were under the impression this was not to be the final production model. Hope that clears up some discrepancy about the validity.